| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | Navin Sinha J, Rohinton Fali Nariman J. |
| SECTION(S): | Article 5 |
| GENRE: | International Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | India-Korea DTAA, Permanent Establishment |
| COUNSEL: | N. Venkataraman, S. Ganesh |
| DATE: | July 22, 2020 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | July 24, 2020 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2007-08 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| The condition precedent for applicability of “fixed place” permanent establishments under Article 5(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties is that it should be an establishment “through which the business of an enterprise” is wholly or partly carried on. Further, the profits of the foreign enterprise are taxable only where the said enterprise carries on its core business through a permanent establishment. The maintenance of a fixed place of business which is of a preparatory or auxiliary character in the trade or business of the enterprise would not be considered to be a permanent establishment under Article 5. Also, it is only so much of the profits of the enterprise that may be taxed in the other State as is attributable to that permanent establishment (All imp judgements referred) | |
Though it was pointed out to the ITAT that there were only two persons working in the Mumbai office, neither of whom was qualified to perform any core activity of the Assessee, the ITAT chose to ignore the same. This being the case, it is clear, therefore, that no permanent establishment has been set up within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, as the Mumbai Project Office cannot be said to be a fixed place of business through which the core business of the Assessee was wholly or partly carried on. Also, as correctly argued by Shri Ganesh, the Mumbai Project Office, on the facts of the present case, would fall within Article 5(4)(e) of the DTAA, inasmuch as the office is solely an auxiliary office, meant to act as a liaison office between the Assessee and ONGC
Recent Comments